Four unarmed men

This is a discussion on Four unarmed men within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by GreenHorn
Oh I get it!!! This is a trick question!!!
4 unarmed men cannot grab your wife, They have no arms!!!!
Thanks ...

No intent to be rude, but this is a "no brainer." Who is going to let his wife be dragged into a van when he is armed? Isn't this the reason we carry a gun, so that we can protect ourselves and our family from harm.

If the driver is still in the van kill him first then disable vehicle ( grab keys, shoot out tires). See if rest of mob is still up for a fight now that they can't get away in van with your wife. Ventilate BGs as needed, they can't all hide behind the wife shield at the same time.

So, you're going to shoot and kill the only one of the 4 who is not an immediate threat and who has not committed an overt act in furtherance of the violent felony you are trying to prevent?

Sounds like a quick path to prison to me.

Originally Posted by me

I like the taking out the driver Idea. I would not have initially thought about that but it makes perfect sense.

They Die she stays with me and lives.

Well, at least JAT40 will have a cell-mate to talk to.

Matt

Matt,

With all due respect, you are wrong. If that person is in the van waiting for them to pull her in he is just as guilty, legally, as they are and he is my best way to keep them there. If you are in commission of a crime with a buddy and they kill someone by law you are guilty of murder.

Being that he knows they are pulling her to the van (this would be a loud incident) then if he and that van are still there he is fair as a target. He is immediately a threat, if she gets to that van he is my most dangerous threat. Is he not?

Maybe you missed the logic that Janq put so well.

Originally Posted by Janq

Also agreed with JAT40, I too think I would engage the driver with high priority so as to delay if not neutralize their ability to remove themselves from the scene with my wife in hand and pulled into their vehicle (van, car, whatever).

And yes, he did commit an overt act.

Originally Posted by banana

A van approaches from behind and slows down next to you as you walk.

When he slowed the van down he committed that act as he is the driver.

My wife is 6'2" 180lbs 39" legs, and can accurately kick over MY head (I am 6'4"). She also has a badge and gun, and our land shark is always with us when we are on a quiet stroll through our country neighborhood.

If all else fails....we are both well versed in the ancient art of Gun Fu.

I am prepared, but not worried...she can handle herself quite well indeed.

If there is, in fact, a state where carry is legal, the laws of which did not consider shooting any or all of them in this scenario a lawful use of deadly force, then I think that we are all in deep trouble.

With all due respect, you are wrong. If that person is in the van waiting for them to pull her in he is just as guilty, legally, as they are and he is my best way to keep them there. If you are in commission of a crime with a buddy and they kill someone by law you are guilty of murder.

Being that he knows they are pulling her to the van (this would be a loud incident) then if he and that van are still there he is fair as a target. He is immediately a threat, if she gets to that van he is my most dangerous threat. Is he not?

No, he's not. The individuals who are actually assaulting your wife are an immediate threat - the guy in the van is a potential threat.

Originally Posted by me

Maybe you missed the logic that Janq put so well.

I understand the impulse, but the hard truth is that the driver of the van is not an immediate threat.

Originally Posted by me

And yes, he did commit an overt act.

When he slowed the van down he committed that act as he is the driver.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where the act of slowly following and then stopping is an immediate, deadly threat that justifies the use of deadly force.

The driver, while certainly criminally culpable for the overall act being committed, is not an immediate threat. He's not physically attacking anyone in this scenario.

Let's say you are being robbed at gunpoint by to assailants - one has a gun, one is standing behind him acting as his lookout. You use deadly force to protect yourself from the one with the gun (also known as the actual threat). While the accomplice is certainly criminally culpable in this act (and will probably face murder charges in the death of his accomplice if he dies), you cannot shoot and kill the lookout as well.

In Florida that is a forcible felony; the commission of which allows for deadly force to stop or prevent it.

What would I do? Let'er rip. Hopefully the driver won't give me a reason to shoot him as well, though it'd be nice if he stayed where he was (lined up with my sights) after his buddies were taken care of.

This is the law;
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. - John Steinbeck

You and your wife are walking through a quiet residential neighborhood, getting some exercise after a late lunch. A van approaches from behind and slows down next to you as you walk. Four men jump out of the van, chasing down the two of you as you attempt to evade them. The men grab your wife and begin to drag her back to the van. All four men are unarmed. What do you do?

Assume you are armed with your favorite pistol, but have no
less-than-lethal means of self defense (oc spray, etc.)

I'ld hand them some money for gas.

But, I wouldn't be running around to evade them ..... they come to grab me next to an open van, somebody is going to be laying on the ground with a bullet wound.

I have to believe that the driver is taking an active part in the kidnapping, which is legal grounds for use of deadly force. That's my worthless opinion, anyway. At the end of the day its gonna be up to a Prosecutor to see if the grand jury is gonna put it before a real jury.